351 Conn. 213
Conn.2025Background
- Defendant Adam P. was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child, based on abuse of two minor victims, D and T, who delayed reporting the abuse for approximately nine years.
- The defense at trial argued the victims fabricated their stories in order to maintain their mother’s attention once the possibility of defendant returning arose. The credibility of the victims and the delay in reporting were key factual issues.
- The trial court, following Connecticut precedent (State v. Daniel W. E.), instructed the jury not to consider the delay in reporting when assessing the victims’ credibility.
- Defendant objected, arguing this instruction improperly bolstered the victims and undermined his defense, but the court overruled the objection.
- The jury returned a split verdict, convicting on some but not all charges. Defendant appealed, raising the instructional issue and the admission of certain grooming-related testimony from a victim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by instructing jury not to consider delay in reporting when assessing victim credibility | Instruction was proper under Daniel W. E.; did not mislead or prejudice defendant | Instruction invaded jury’s role; unfairly bolstered victim; prejudiced defense centered on fabricating due to delayed report | Daniel W. E. overruled; instructional error harmless and not of constitutional magnitude; no new trial warranted |
| Whether the modification to constancy of accusation doctrine in Daniel W. E. should stand | Joins defendant in urging return to Troupe; Daniel W. E. procedure unique and confusing | Argues Daniel W. E. modification created confusion and unfair results in sexual assault trials | Court returns to pre-existing Troupe standard for constancy of accusation evidence |
| Whether trial court abused discretion admitting testimony that defendant told D he played same sexual "games" with his daughter | Testimony was admissible as evidence of grooming and not unduly prejudicial | Prejudicial effect outweighed probative value; implied uncharged misconduct with defendant’s daughter | No abuse of discretion; limiting instructions mitigated any prejudice |
| Whether any instructional error was of constitutional magnitude requiring automatic reversal | Did not implicate elements, burden of proof, or presumption of innocence; non-constitutional error | Claimed constitutional violation as delay was central to credibility and thus outcome | Error was non-constitutional; burden on defendant to show harm; found harmless |
Key Cases Cited:
- State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 (established constancy of accusation doctrine and limits on constancy evidence)
- State v. Daniel W. E., 322 Conn. 593 (later modification to constancy doctrine, now overruled)
- State v. Beavers, 290 Conn. 386 (jurors presumed to follow trial court instructions)
- State v. Felix R., 319 Conn. 1 (strength of evidence in child sexual assault cases without physical evidence)